5 Ways Obamacare Will Succeed

With the passing of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in 2010, also known in shorthand as Obamacare, lawmakers and President Obama ushered in the winds of change in the health-care industry. Having witnessed the successful implementation of socialized and subsidized health care in Canada and Switzerland -- and seeing the average health-care premiums paid by employers and individuals rise by 62% and 82%, respectively, from 2000 to 2010 -- the time had come in 2010 to make sweeping reforms... and the PPACA was it!

Both sides of the aisle have presented very convincing and heated arguments over the past couple of years about why Obamacare is right or wrong for America. It nearly didn't make it into law when the constitutionality of its individual mandate, as well as other aspects of the bill, was brought into question in the highest of all U.S. courts -- the Supreme Court – last year. However, in June the Supreme Court ruled in favor of upholding the validity and nearly all aspects of the PPACA, paving the way for its full implementation by 2014.

Whether you're for or against Obamacare, it's clear that advantages and disadvantages exist. Today, I plan to focus on the advantages of Obamacare and lay out five ways that it will succeed in bettering our health-care system. (Click here to read about five areas where Obamacare appears destined to fail.)

1. It will reduce hospitals' exposure to doubtful accounts.Under our current system, no one is required by mandate to carry insurance. This means that any of the 48.6 million uninsured Americans as of the end of 2011, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, could walk into a hospital and receive stabilizing treatment in an emergency room since public hospitals can't turn away people in need of care, regardless of their financial status.

Unfortunately for many hospitals, this has exposed them to a rather large annual provision for doubtful accounts (those accounts where treatment is given but payment goes uncollected). In 2012, HCA Holdings (NYSE: HCA) , the largest hospital operator in the U.S., generated $36.8 billion in revenue, but set aside $3.77 billion, or 10.25%, for doubtful accounts. The smaller rival of HCA, Tenet Healthcare (NYSE: THC) , set aside less on a percentage basis in 2012, just 7.9% of total revenue. But it also saw its provision for doubtful accounts rise by nearly 10% year-over-year.

Obamacare will solve the majority of this problem by mandating that employers with more than 50 employees provide health-care solutions to their employees, and that individuals and small business with fewer than 50 employees get health insurance either themselves or through their state's insurance pool. With fewer uninsured and underinsured people walking into hospital emergency rooms, hospitals will be setting significantly less aside for doubtful accounts and should ultimately see a boost to their bottom line. This boost in profits could be used to reward shareholders through share repurchases or a dividend payout, but, in all likelihood, it could be used to buy state-of-the-art medical equipment that will help differentiate their hospital from peers and improve the quality of patient care.

2. It will bring 16 million previously uninsured Americans under the Medicaid umbrella.The Congressional Budget Office and Joint Committee on Taxation put their heads and estimates together in a July 2012 report and have concluded that the net result of Obamacare will expand insurance to up to 30 million people by the end of the decade. The more important figure I see is the 16 million currently uninsured lower income individuals who will be brought into the fold under the Medicaid expansion.

The Medicaid expansion -- which will completely pay for the lowest income earners while subsidizing those who make up to 400% of the Federal poverty level -- will be financed by a combination of higher taxes on upper income earners and the medical device excise tax, which is a 2.3% tax of total revenue for medical device makers.

Insurers with little exposure to government-run Medicaid have been making big bets that a steady stream of newly insured people will translate into big profits. WellPoint (NYSE: ANTM) , for instance, ponied up $4.46 billion in cash to buy Amerigroup in July in order to become the largest Medicaid company by membership, surpassing UnitedHealth Group. The 43% premium paid for Amerigroup was astoundingly expensive, placing the company at more than 18 times forward earnings, but should add $1 per year in EPS by 2015. However, I feel this speaks more to the growing quality of care that lower income earners will be soon be able to receive since many, due to the high costs of premiums or through their employers, had been shut out of the health-care system.

3. It will cap insurers' profits and require them to spend 80% of premium costs on health-care services.In years past, the ability of insurers to raise premium costs was predominantly at their own discretion. By raising premiums, insurers certainly ran the risk of scaring off its members -- or prospective members -- to competing insurers, but this was rarely the case. Similar to how property and casualty insurers operate by hiking premiums after a large catastrophe loss, health insurers used similar methods, such as higher health-care and drug costs -- and one need only look at the high price of orphan drugs like Alexion Pharmaceuticals' Soliris, which is tipping the scales at $400,000 for a full year of treatment -- to garner huge premium hikes.

Those big premium hikes could be a thing of the past with the PPACA capping their profit with the implementation of the 80/20 rule. For starters, it disallows insurers from raising their premiums just for the sake of profit and requires insurers to explain to the state (or states) why a premium hike of more than 10% is justified.

More importantly, Obamacare will require insurers to spend at least 80% of patient premiums on actual health-care services and will cap administrative expenses at 20%. This means that if insurers fail to spend at least 80% of their premium revenue on member health-care services, that it must write a check for the difference to members. In August, for instance, insurers were required to return $1.1 billion in premium payments to approximately 12.8 million members. Simply put, if you pay for a service you should get the rewards that come along with that service. The 80/20 rule will ensure that will happen!

4. It will expand the benefits of the average health plan.The sands of time are definitely ticking on individual health-care plans, which, in some cases, offer nothing more than bare-bones coverage. According to a study done by the University of Chicago, about 50% of all individual plans will be inadequate in terms of the benefits they are required to provide under the PPACA, and will either disappear or evolve by the time it's implemented in full in 2014.

Released in February, the Obama administration outlined 10 key benefits that will be required under the PPACA in health-care plans, including hospitalization, prescription drugs, maternity, and newborn care. With these benefits becoming a requirement under Obamacare, hospitals will be further shielded from doubtful/non-covered procedures and medications, and patients will have a broader scope of treatment options available to them. The point being that health-care members will be prepared for a myriad of ailments should they strike rather than merely jumping into the system when they get sick.

Another key point is that the PPACA disallows insurers from discriminating against patients with pre-existing conditions. Broad coverage will ensure all those who want health-care will be well-covered.

5. It will promote preventive health-care visits and should therefore reduce long-term care costs.I believe one of the least talked about and most elusive benefits of bringing in up to 30 million people into the health-care system over the next decade is the amount of savings that will occur from an increase in preventative visits.

Broader health-care coverage in terms of individual plans, coupled with a Medicaid expansion expected to bring almost 16 million Americans under the Medicaid umbrella by 2014, gives previously uninsured individuals access to preventative medical care that didn't previously exist. The most obvious beneficiaries from a financial perspective under this scenario are diagnostic companies and preventative medication suppliers.

General Electric (NYSE: GE) , a conglomerate known best for the industrial side of its business, would likely be a beneficiary as its MRI and CT scanners could be more regularly used in preventative cancer detection. Likewise, prescription drugs like AstraZeneca's (NYSE: AZN) Crestor, used to treat high cholesterol, should benefit as a preventative treatment to curtail the high risks of heart attack, stroke, and heart disease that come along with a high cholesterol diagnosis.

The end result of better preventative care should be fewer serious complications requiring expensive hospitalizations. With half of all health-care costs being spent on just 5% of the population, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation, keeping even a small percentage of the high health risk population healthier through regular preventative visits could mean billions of dollars in savings.

The Motley Fool's chief investment officer has selected his No. 1 stock for the next year. Find out which stock it is in the brand-new free report: "The Motley Fool's Top Stock for 2013." Just click here to access the report and find out the name of this under-the-radar company.

Fool contributor Sean Williams has no material interest in any companies mentioned in this article. You can follow him on CAPS under the screen name TMFUltraLong, track every pick he makes under the screen name TrackUltraLong, and check him out on Twitter, where he goes by the handle @TMFUltraLong.

The Motley Fool owns shares of General Electric and WellPoint. The Motley Fool recommends UnitedHealth Group and WellPoint. Try any of our Foolish newsletter services free for 30 days. We Fools may not all hold the same opinions, but we all believe that considering a diverse range of insights makes us better investors. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.

Comments from our Foolish Readers

Help us keep this a respectfully Foolish area! This is a place for our readers to discuss, debate, and learn more about the Foolish investing topic you read about above. Help us keep it clean and safe. If you believe a comment is abusive or otherwise violates our Fool's Rules, please report it via the Report this Comment icon found on every comment.

I'll give you Three reasons Obamacare will fail and eventually be gutted Sean:

1. The law doesn't even try to address the real reason health care costs are out of whack in this country in too much care. In fact it extends this too more people.

2. The 16M new insureds is almost certainly a pipe dream with the low penalty if you don't buy insurance. In fact only those with pre-existing conditions costing more than the coverage are likely to join. The recent under the radar announcement by team Obama that they were ending pre-existing condition coverage for new insureds a year early because it cost too much, not enough joined and in general only those who's medical costs exceeded premiums joined is pretty darned good evidence this ain't gonna work out the way Obama, Reid and Pelosi dreamed it would.

3. With private insurance companies netting a whopping 5% profit on average the whole "Insurance companies are gouging you and that's the problem with health care costs" was a red herring to begin with. I've seen language suggesting the mandates that the health care industry in general agreed to in return for volume are conditional and I'd bet money one of the conditions is they actually get the 16M promised new insureds. Not only won't squeezing a couple bucks out of the insurance companies in general make a difference to health care costs, it's highly likely the mandates on the health care industry in general fall apart because they don't get the volume they were promised.

IMO Obamacare will go down as the poster child for unintended consequences.

You obviously think Obamacare is going to survive. I have made a mental note never to read, or take action on any of your advice on any subject. I assume that your next hospital stay will be in Canada.

Even a casual observer knows Obamacare is in the process of imploding. Ask any rational Democrat.

#1 .. really? O work for a hospital. They just had a meeting for all employees. They will have to comply with providing for uninsured. The ACA assumes all uninsured will be insured by ACA mandate, or pay a fine. Illegals (excuse me undocumented) immigrants won't pay the fine, and won't buy insurance. The hospital cannot refuse care any walkin to the eemergency room, only to general admission patients who already have their insurance eligibility authorized in realtime. I would appreciate if the writers of these articles be honest. One major change to the hospital's operating paradigm was made clear. They are switching from a fee based care provider paradigm to a compliance paradignm. This to avoid the inherant fines added onto the exhorbitant taxes that come part and parcel with OBama's singularly lame helathcare mandate.

Doctor's bankruptcy filings are sky rocketing. Why do you think that is?

#6... is 48 million on welfare will vote this in easily... How will they do this you might ask... Because they are voting citizens.. If you want to be reelected in some way shape or form, do you want to be the person that denies them free healthcare ?

#1 is incorrect in that there will actually be more uninsured people going forward as the cost for younger people is going to double or triple in price and they will then not carry insurance, hence more uninsured people. The hospitals already pass the majority of this cost down the line anyway so it is a non issue.

#2 Do you know many states that are fiscally sound? Is Medicaid a solely national program? The answer to both is no. Conclusion, more burden for states = more taxes by states. This is not a success for Obamacare.

#3 is already in play and why do writers of articles such as these not discuss how insuring a ton of unhealthy people which will continue to raise significant cost to insurers, not be spread out and passed along to the entire pool of insureds? Oh that is right, redistribution is a key prophecy of this administration.

#4 and #5 is anything on this earth free? When you receive a better benefit, a name brand drug, an upgraded car, a larger home, doesn't it cost more? Hmmm. When you get more benefits that are "free" my premium goes up? How does that work? So in this instance an analogy would be someone with state minimum coverage on auto insurance goes to a 500k coverage plan they pay the same right?

To the writer of the article, do some research! Talk to people that might have a clue about this stuff so you don't look like a "fool" when writing this type of article. Understand that I have worked for the largest health insurer in the nation and have studied this law top to bottom which allows me the opportunity to elaborate with facts as I have here versus opinion, which is what the author of this article did. Any questions? Have a great day.

Obummercare will succeed in driving unemployment higher, cutting full time employment to an almost non existent level. and really screwing senior citizens when medicaid and medicare are gutted to pay for it. It won't provide additional preventative care to anyone because the government can't even manage to set up the exchanges that will provide the insurance. This is one of the biggest disasters of our lifetime.

Actually, I appreciate a "bullish" writer on this subject. It has been fashionable and trendy to vilify Obamacare so a contrarian point of view is welcome among the usual comments.

That said, one of your points concerns me. . .the Medicaid dilemma. Medicaid IS a great deal. It's a great deal if you are a patient. It's a great deal if you are the government. You get healthcare dirt cheap, sometimes as low as $6.00/visit.

The problem is, and I can speak to this as a healthcare provider, we all know one thing. . .if Medicaid patients swamp you, you are going to go under. Reimbursements don't even pay for the lights, let alone your rent or your pay.

I stopped taking Medicaid years ago (did my bit for "God and Country") and certainly have no plans to take it ever again. It's not fair to my other paying customers.

The Deal: Americans will be sicker. Sick people are very costly. If IPAB -- the Independent Payment Advisory Board, a division of ObamaCare -- cuts costs, sick people will not be a problem. They will be dead people.

Dead people are much cheaper than sick ones. They -- you and I -- will die because the treatments we need were labeled "not cost-effective" and are no longer available.

So, when you cannot find a job, lose the one you have, get converted to part-time, or watch your loved ones on Medicare/aid die when they could have been saved, remember Barack Obama and the Dems who did this to you.

My guess is you are not yet thirty and have absolutely no idea what has been going on in the country regarding healthcare for the past 50 years. We used to have no problem with availability, choice, access, and quality for ALL until our society became litigious, other-dependent, and void of borders. I am and have been a social worker for 30 years, and have been watching as our systems (healthcare, education, corrections, etc...) have become wildly expensive and destructive as they have centralized and come under increased bureaucratic control.

Obamacare has already failed. It handily does away with any ability for those of us in private practice to earn a living and places all authority on large systems that do not have a client or patient's interest as the priority- clients and/or patients now serve a system's guidelines. Any dissent is not tolerated. Moreover, rotten "care" costs more than can ever be afforded- and people are sicker for it.

Obamacare does worse than fail interms of economics- it shuts out any and all ability for us to deliveer what clients an patients need.

How did it come to this? How did young guys like you get so misinformed yet confident? I think something as simple as the Milgram Experiment illustrates why perfectly.

Fair enough Sean. The one issue I don't see anyone discussing that I think will be critical is to what extent are the fee's taxes and mandates that the Health Care Industry in general agreed to in exchange for volume dependent on that volume. I've seen language that at least some of these are conditional. I found it hard to believe the industry knuckled under so easily this time around when they fought so hard and successfully defeated Hillary Care. It seems pretty reasonable to me to assume the Industry isn't as stupid or weak as the capitulation to this law suggests to many and it isn't just going to be a shame if they don't get the increased volume they were sold on because individuals will opt for the minor penalty and businesses will game the penalty and part time exclusions. At what point of this thing not working as planned does it have to go back to Congress to be fixed? It won't be a one sided affair the next time.

Individuals premiums are going to skyrocket by at least 50% of what you are paying now since the maximum deductible allowed will only be $2000 where it is now $5000....If you are a healthy individual... you will barely be able to put food on your table....What about my freedom of not wanting health insurance...Constitution does not require health insurance to pursue happiness...

Sounds like the writer knows a little about business, and nothing about medicine. As a practitioner who works in medical imaging, the line that "MR and CT scanners could be used for cancer prevention" blew me away. There is no such thing as a "preventative cancer scan". There's is such a thing for early detection. However, the writer's argument is for prevention. Those scanners cost up to a million dollars apiece by the time they're installed. CT subjects the patient to radiation. They're not portable. And, if you SEE cancer, well, unfortunately, it's already there, and CAN'T be prevented. However, he was correct in stating that GE will benefit. Heck, GE's CEO has his own room at the White House. You BET they'll benefit!

Health insurance is not an iPad, or car, it's a derivative product driven by the cost of healthcare. Obamacare will be a total failure in accomplishing what it set out to do, make healthcare affordable. The problem is, Obamacare focused on insurance, not the real problem, which is the cost of healthcare. The cost of health insurance is driven by the cost of healthcare, not the other way around. I don't care if you add 50 million policies, because that's simply 50 million more people using health services, which costs more money. Volume has absolutely nothing to do with the cost of insurance. A derivative like health insurance will never follow the laws of supply and demand, especially when the product itself is mandated. We have to buy it, so there's no reason to even compete anymore. All insurance companies have to do is convince politicians they need to raise rates or reduce coverage, and congress actually has to approve it if the numbers justify it. It doesn't even have to make sense honestly, as long as the lobbying effort is strong enough. It all adds up to more lawyers, lobbyists, and bureaucrats, all of which have nothing to do with healthcare. So, admin costs are going to skyrocket, diverting less of our money to getting cured. This is a joke.

Although again, I disagreed with a couple of his points, his one point IS salient. In Switzerland and Germany, 90% of what they do there is very similar to Obamacare. And their economies are humming along.

They make everyone carry insurance. They then help those who can't pay for it because they all realize "hey, we are in this together." (horrors! Socialism!)

There are a couple missing ingredients and I think the GOP really missed an opportunity:

A. Tort reform. In Europe, healthcare providers aren't sued. They are disciplined. Obama was ready to give the GOP this and instead they decided to pout.

B. ER's turn patients away for sniffles and tummy aches in Germany and Switzerland. They don't CAT scan every headache or tummy ache.

So, yes, I do think Obamacare WAS a step in the right direction. But it's far from done.

A valiant effort, but unfortunately, the whole system is still built on private for-profit insurance. Eventually, when the American people join the 21st century and admit that we have the best health care in the world, but only for the top 5% of Americans who can afford it, we will finally get to a single payer system which treats everyone with dignity like the rest of our civilized, democratic neighbors.

sadly, its a complete turnaround. Those that never worked or cared to have benefits will have free healthcare and those that worked all of their lives to have retirement benefits won't be able to afford the healthcare that is free to the mexican illegals but too expensive for the ones that retired. Good call, Barry.

When you have to sneek behind the publics back to push your agenda that no one had really read at that time, you know something is fishy? when you tell the American people they will purchase it or be fined, thats in the lines of Hitler and Stalin? When you cant manage our budget, our economy, our deficit, our unemployment, our growing numbers on welfare and food stamps, then why would any one be stupid enough to believe that your Obama care is worth the paper its written on?

Glen Beck is one wise man! Now, Catholic Bishop: Bama Is 'Proponent' of What is 'Shameful and Criminal in the Eyes of Almighty God’

(CNSNews.com) – Nicholas DiMarzio, the Catholic bishop of the diocese of Brooklyn, N.Y., says that in his zealous support for abortion, Baroc Bama (translated means Satan) has used his position not to help mothers and children in difficult circumstances but instead has been an advocate for that which “is shameful and criminal in the eyes of Almighty God.”

In his column for the diocesan newspaper The Tablet, entitled “Deeper Into the Culture of Death,” Bishop DiMarzio praises Abraham Lincoln, the abolition of slavery, and notes how far the nation has come in electing Bama as president. DiMarzio also notes the 40th anniversary of the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision, which legalized abortion through all nine months of pregnancy and how Bama has promoted that decision.

“The so-called ‘pro-choice’ movement has its roots in the ideology of Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, who understood her call to be one who would ‘assist the race toward the elimination of the unfit,’” states Bishop DiMarzio. “Of course, a young Barry Soetoro-Soetorahak-Bama was precisely the sort of unfit child that Sanger and her allies would want to eliminate.”

“Tragically, the President has not been an advocate for those young children faced with similarly difficult circumstances,” says Bp. DiMarzio. “He has chosen to use the bully pulpit not to call upon us all to be nobler and to embrace each child, regardless of origins and circumstances; rather, he has been a proponent of an expediency that is shameful and criminal in the eyes of Almighty God.”

The bishop also discusses the Bamacare mandate that requires nearly all health care plans to offer contraceptives, sterilization, and abortion-inducing drugs without co-pays, arguing that these rules “imposed on our Nation” would force “Catholic institutions to provide employees with medical procedures and services we believe to be in defiance of the will of God.”

“We know that, today, an administration that is hostile requires contraception and sterilization,” states the bishop. “However, as government involves itself in our internal affairs, there is little doubt in anyone’s mind that the government would seek to compel religious institutions to provide abortion services in the future.”

He continues, “In my view, those who voted for Bama bear the responsibility for a step deeper in the culture of death. Under the cover of women’s issues, we now see an assault on religious freedom and personal conscience.”

The bishop criticizes New York Democratic Governor Andrew Cuomo, a Catholic, for proposing “the largest expansion of abortion rights in New York State history,” which he says is an expansion of “this culture of death.”

“I would have hoped that the first African-American president of the United States and Baroc Bama would have stood on the side of freedom for all,” says Bishop DiMarzio in conclusion. “Instead, he stands on the side of political expediency. Mr. Lincoln, with great difficulty, put out into the deep and paid with his life. Would that our political leaders today would have some of the same courage.”

I knew that that the usual group of semi-literates would be posting the usual set of talking points, but it was 100% until after I signed up. Of course I agree with Scanner89.

I do not get it that people seem to enjoy being scammed by corporations, seeming to feel that they are not entitled to anything but hard work, low pay and endless debt. Yet, this plan, as you point out, is a win - win situation for corporations (hospitals, insurance companies and drug companies) who get paid even when the vast majority of us can't possibly afford to pay them, and still those who cry "socialism" are upset. Getting medical care when they need it seems just unimaginable. How do we rate? We should all just get sick and die.

Personally, I would prefer a European system, which better deserves the title of socialism than Obamacare. I do not think that our health care should subject to bottom-line, Wall Street powered profiteering. I believe we could do an even better job of building European-style system from the ground up with advancements in information technology that have been developed in the 60+ years since their systems began. But now we have the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, based on existing free market corporate entities, and it would behoove everyone to get behind this mule and push.

I guarantee you, Sean, whatever you write in your criticism won't be enough to settle the loyal corporate magpies.

I'll reserve my opinion until I read the article on why it will fail but the article today is a pipe dream. It is full of assumptions. For instance, you assume that doctors are going to see all these low income insured people for Medicaid rates. It won't happen unless the government mandates that physicians see them or all rates gravitate to the lowest common denominator which is Medicaid. If that happens you'll get a two tiered Medical system which won't be good for anybody.

Addressing the last one first, if 30 million people who are not currently receiving diagnostics screening will then receive them, it will completely overwhelm the healthcare system. In additiona, the price of those 30 million screening procedures will dwarf the treatment costs of the tiny percentage pof people who actually have the disease for which they are screening.

Additionally, expanding required converage whcih doens't apply to a majority of people is only helpful for insurance compnaies. Why does everyone need converage for childbirth or neonatal services? Less than half the population ver have a baby!

Thye best solution, and one you will NOT hear from the corporate controlled president and congress in DC, is to make all health care not for profit, from Insurance to Hosptialization to Physician Practices.

Oh My they were only able to name 5 things Obamacare will do. I believe it will prolong our lives so we will all live forever. It will cure Aids and rickets. It will cause grass to grow greener and our water to taste sweeter. I can not believe the article didnt mentioned this. I heard it will also cure acne, arthritis and pay off our national debt. It will turn all illegal aliens into legal status. it will make our TV much more entertaining, it will allow us to work less hours, lose weight, grow more hair and not have to cut our fingernails. I also heard obamacare will paint our houses, cut our grass, wash our dishes and put our kids to sleep. Obama care is the cure all for everything and some of us didnt want it....silly us

If those were the 5 reasons it will succeed then I am not worried at all, LoL...

The author of this article if asked "What are 5 reasons we should trust Obama?" The 5 answers might be 1. He is a transparent President. 2. He is good at Golf. 3. He is good at Basketball. 4. He is an experienced military leader. 5. He did inhale.

Yes Obamacare will succeed in totally bankrupting America, will push more doctors out of health care, will create less doctors, will make health care costs skyrocket like it is already doing, will eventually cause more deaths and on and on.

OMG! This article is pure propaganda and the writers have a great future with Granma, the Cuban Communist daily or North Korea's state run paper.

Just tacking the FIRST two lies - when employers dump their employees' health care and pay a fine instead NOBODY will benefit and hospitals will be forced to cover MORE uninsured people in their ERs. And, most rural hospitals will see reimbursements reduced up to 100% thus closing them - the result will be fewer medical centers for more people and those who live in rural areas will simply die for lack of treatment.

Secondly, Medicare is ALREADY strapped and this will only increase the strain on it forcing millions to wait for weeks or months for treatment and increasing the death rate in the USA. There will be fewer medical centers, fewer doctors, fewer diagnostic machines per capita resulting in only bad news.

The writers of this article are evil monsters and they have NO credibility.

Most of your readers are woefully uninformed. Do they have any idea as to how much we spend on medical care (close to 18% of GDP, almost double the average in Europe) and how bad our average results are? Obama sought to remedy this but was mostly frustrated by the right wing. The article points out a few of the areas where the Health Care Act could have some benefits but your fact challenged readers cannot get past their prejudices. As long as there are real fools like these around, there will be little chance of improvement.

When will Washington stop shoving this nanny state mentality down our throats? We''ll all soon be walking around like Linus carrying a security blanket and a thumb to suck on. Government is to protect liberty, private property, and preserve national security and the rule of law. A government that can give us everything we want can take all we have.

1) No matter whether you are FORCED to have insurance by the US Government to have insurance or not, when the Affordable Health Care Act is fully implemented (and also currently) NO ONE and I mean NO ONE will be turned away from an Emergency Department who wishes to be seen. Nothing in the law addresses personal responsibility. If you want an aspirin and decide you will NOT buy health coverage and will NOT pay the fine, an ER will STILL be obligated to see you, provide a medical screening exam by a physician and treat you. Period.

2) We (Taxpayers) will STILL have to pay for the patient described above. And 16 million MORE patients without any regards to improving the ACCESS does NOTHING to stop the CRISIS which is tort reform and personal responsibility. (Again, See #1) Additionally, We, the Taxpayer, will be forced to pay for this Brand New And Improved Monstrosity that replicates what we already have in place. Just larger and more beauracratized.

3) It MAY cap insurers profits, but at the expense of the insured. The solution is to open states borders to negotiating contracts. Not artifical restraints. Who do you think wrote the Affordable Health Care Act? Consumers? Really? Are you high?

4) Of course it expands coverage of the average health plan. That is because since 1968, the AVERAGE has been re defined thousands of times over and over. Its a vague. generalized, realtive, hard-to-prove factoid that does not mean anything. What is "average"?

5) How will it promote preventative Health Care when people refuse to take their health care seriously? If they took their care seriously, we would not have gotten ourselves into this mess to begin with. And how can you be "preventive" in health care if you do not shore up the need for physicians, RNs, RTs, PTs, et al

Scanner 89 is partially correct. But he should read the March 4 issue of Time magazine. Dems shrugged off the tort reform. Not the GOP. And also, the reason the Switzerland system works so well is that the government gave the three big insurance players ultimatums; do the RIGHT thing, or you will not be allowed to play at all.

It also helps when you have a homogenous, single minded country that is smaller than New Hampshire and Vermont combined.

I can't compete with most of these responses. A lot of very knowledgable people commenting here. I really only know what I've personally seen.

My rates that really were increasing in very small amounts per year have gone up in huge increments since the ACA passed. My girlfriend's company kept theirs from going up a lot by lowering their coverage to offset some of the cost. So much for "if you like your insurance you can keep it"

We laid off people to offset the employers end of the costs going up. My girlfriend's company pulled job openings because of it.

The 2 friends that we have that work in hospitals went from liking their jobs to hating them and wanting out of the field.

We're now hearing estimates of 6 trillion in spending needed for this thing at the national level. That most states can't afford the Medicaid expansion. The President is now willing to deal off social security benifits because why all of the sudden? Wasn't going to cost us a dime in taxes huh?

I see people posting a couple of smart sounding responses as to us needing health care reform. Fair enough, but why is it that every single person I come in contact is far, far worse off because of THIS law???

Wow this is some heavy duty water carrying for bill that has been a disaster, does not cover everyone, raises costs, makes doctors and health care less available... I guess his guru told him all this because no one else even knows all of what's in it. ?

If you read the writer's bio, he invests in the medical industry, manages all of two accounts, his and a friends. I suspect he's practicing his sales pitch to potential losers.

Seems to me that all the people on this board should know the basic rule of supply, demand and price. If everyone working from 20 to 70 paid into the system, the purchasing power would be incredible. Of course those that are younger will wonder why on earth they are paying into a health system when they are healthy and are not using it. But when they turn 50 or 60 they will be reaping the benefits of their contributions and of those that are now the younger contributors. We pay taxes for so many other idiotic things that have no use, at least we would be paying to actually get a benefit for ourselves. Just think about it, walk into a doctors office, get treated, with perhaps only a $20 copay. We sent men to the moon yet we're are too stupid to figure out how to cover all or citizens. Boggles the mind.

Let's take #1 & #2 and talk about them together. Medicaid recipients are blatant misusers of the hospital ER system for simple reasons. There are no 'rules' in place that prohibit Medicaid recipients from utilizing the ER as their primary care doc. This is not a myth -it is a reality all over the country. I see it on a daily basis. Some instances are due to the fact that Medicaid recipients have difficulty finding doctors who will take on Medicaid patients. Other reasons are simply because they know that they can go to the ER and so they do it. More convenient - no appts, etc. With this large influx of Medicaid patients why shouldn't we expect more hospital ER visits by this group of people? Until this group begins to start having consequences for their health care choices and must have to face the same 'rules' that the rest of us do....nothing will change. Hospitals may get 'reimbursed' by the states but the rate of reimbursement is very small. So if the pro-Obamacare people truly believe that padding the Medicaid roles is the answer - dream on! As for how all of these newly enrolled Medicaid people will be paid for - don't buy the propaganda that this article is feeding you. Take for example the tax on medical devices. Such a device, for example, is what is used in a knee replacement. Insurance policies aren't and don't cover this 'tax' - leaving that amount due by the insured - ie - YOU! Sure, more money will be paid into the system to pay for all of these newly enrolled Medicaid patients but it will be paid for by US. No matter how you slice it, dice it or chop it up....WE, the ones who have private insurance, WE the ones who watch our insurance premiums go up up up and our benefits go down down and down further....we will be the ones paying to insure all of these people.

If you want to keep health care costs down....do it responsibly. Make it universal that seeing your GP costs everyone (with the exception of Medicare patients who shouldn't have to bear the burden) $10 and specialists $25. If I (and others with private insurance) have to think about 'should I go to the doctor and have this test'...then so should Medicaid patients. Why should I have to pay a $5 or $10 copay for my scripts when they pay nothing? Why should I have to have coinsurance and they have nothing?

As for the whole baloney about preventative care - yeah right! If all these people are going to start seeing the doctor, what happens when there aren't enough doctors to see the patients? In addition, it's rather ironic that since Obamacare has been implements, the medical community has changed the rules about preventative testing, etc. For example, it is now recommended that blood work NOT be done on a yearly basis but rather be done every 3 - 5 years. Tests like a CBC, a CHEM panel and cholesterol testing aren't necessary every year? That makes a whole lot of sense, doesn't it? Or, better yet, let's not get a fasting blood sugar because that is too expensive!

Obamacare is NOT the answer and will only cause those of us who work hard to watch our premiums go up and our benefits go down - all the while totally covering all these new Medicaid covered people. Just another example of Obama's version of socialism.

Single payer advocates love to wax poetic about the virtues of socialized health care. They point to Canada and France as prime examples of what a success it is, BUT there are overlooking one big thing. Many countries have socialized health care and it is a disaster. The countries that have had some luck with it have done so because they have a highly productive work force. If you have 95% of the people in your country working and paying taxes it is not too hard to absorb the other 5% into the system. In our country you have WAAAAY too many people who breed and collect a govt. check. They do nothing and produce nothing (except babies) Half the country doesn't even pay income tax! So now we have a much smaller productive sector being forced to absorb a much bigger recipient class who want free stuff and don't want to contribute to the pot. Couple that with a govt. that spends recklessly like ours does and it is a train wreck waiting to happen.

At Last, I finally know why this is called the "The Motley FOOL"!!!! What a load" is easily shown to be false logically and empirically (in other countries that have tried this "foolish" social experiment and are rapidly trying to unwind it!!!

At Last, I finally know why this is called the "The Motley FOOL"!!!! What a load of crap!! Each of these alleged "benefits" is easily shown to be false logically and empirically, in other countries that have tried this "foolish" social experiment and are now rapidly trying to unwind it!!!

"#3. It will cap insurers' profits and require them to spend 80% of premium costs on health-care services."

Really? Not going to happen. I'm a retired Vet of 25 years on TRICARE Prime - the medical insurance used by Active Duty and Retired Military. In order to cut costs I and millions of other Vets are being downgraded to TRICARE Standard because we don't live next door to a Military Base. Our Doctor is close to the base, but we're not...thus we get downgraded. Per a conversation with a TRICARE Rep - "Move close to a base or get a supplemental insurance"...what arrogance.

This is going to be devastating. We live where we do (Semi-Rural KS) to be near family and to raise our children in a good environment. The job I work at pays ok for the area I'm in, but doesn't provide insurance and extra expenses aren't something we can really afford right now. With this downgrading I'll have to pay a whole lot more for a whole lot less from my Insurance -- as an example:

My 8-year old Daughter has a medical condition that is now under control. Her medicine is going to triple from $45 to $135. Last year she was in the Emergency Room and had a Hospital stay of 6-days -- cost $65,000. We had to pay a very small amount, but a similar visit will cost us somewhere in the neighborhood of $15,000. Supplemental Insurance will be less - half that or so a year - and will take food out of our mouths.

I've looked around to see who ultimately made this decision. It came, ultimately, from the CoC - the Commander in Chief. President Obama.

He's selling out Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare...and he's selling out Veterans.

This won't only be hard on my family. It will be hard on millions of Vets and their families.

The reason ObamaCare will fail is because it was deisgned for political purposes by politicians with degrees in law, political science and public administration. Doctors - those who actually deliver services and save lives - had no part in its design and are now to be distanced from medical decision-making and will provide treatments based on direction provided by bureaucrats with no medical knowledge. Imagine the next time you are in the market for a home.... Would you prefer to buy a home from a large, experiences home building company like Ryan Homes or would you buy one designed by Congressional/Senate members and built by civil sevants rather than experienced concrete workers, carpenters. electricians and plumbers? And while you are making up your mind, compare the price you would pay for that new home built by Ryan versus one built by civil servants - having an average salary of $80 per annum and retirement programs head-and-shoulders superior to anyone else in the American job market. So, which home would you buy? 'Nuff said about why ObamaCare will be a disaster.

here are 5 reasons that the writer of this article is way off as far as i am concerned---#1--anyone who is sick can go to the hospital and be taken care #2 16 million more people placed under the medicare systenwill only open up more chances for the system to be stolen from an the extreme cost will be mind boggling #3 as far as i know every medical insurance i have had pays 80% of my medical cost right now #4 if you are in this obamacare program and you need a service to save your life this program can make a decision not to pay for this and you will die--this is what obamacare does for you if you have read a lot about obamacare --#5 how will it save money under this program everyone covered by this will have doctors writing prescriptions for multiple test that normally they would not request so costs will rise i feel that the writer of this --story is very wrong in his preception of obamacare

Not true. It is actually predicted that there could very well be even more uninsured not less. The reason we will have more uninsured is the cost of the better plans. As an example a McDonalds worker that previously had to pay 2.50 a week for his portion of his coverage will now have to pay $25 dollars a week. According to a survey done nearly 80 percent of those type workers will choose to pay the $96 penalty rather than pay the $25 a week. Also there is not going to be a reversal of the law that requires hospitals to cover individuals whether they pay or not. Many of those insured will have such huge deductibles that most hospitals will still have to eat losses.

2. It will bring 16 million previously uninsured Americans under the Medicaid umbrella.

Maybe but we increasing welfare at a time when our country is broke so is that really a positive?

3. It will cap insurers' profits and require them to spend 80% of premium costs on health-care services.

The cost ratio at this point is not going to make much of a difference because it was almost there to begin with. It could make a difference in the future if HHS makes the definition of what qualifies as a medical expense more strict. But then that would lead more to rationing care for members that could reduce costs. However, I’m sure that will be good for the patients.

4. It will expand the benefits of the average health plan.

Again it is good if you are ignoring the increase in cost. Those that believed there would be an increase in benefits without an increase in costs were being idiots. The fact is anyone could have gotten the coverage at any time if they wanted to pay the price. Health insurance would have been more than happy to provide that coverage. The only difference now is members don’t have a choice anymore.

Maybe but evidence has shown this not to be true. The fact is those responsible people that would do preventive care would have done it with or without it being free. Those people that are not responsible enough to go get preventive care still will not.

Wow....This Obamacare thing Sounds GREAT!!!! Except I think they forgot a few things....like adding more people to the medical system but not adding doctors? So we have promotion of preventative care and there will actually be fewer doctors.

We are taking 716 BILLION dollars out of Medicare. Who thinks the elderly are going to have the same access to medical care as those with insurance policies?

I am a little disappointed this author did not dig deeper into ObamaCare to find things like coverage of 26 year olds and under that are required to be covered which seems to be popular and not overly onerous on the insurance companies.

... but Sean has said he has seen this sort of Health Care successfully implemented in Canada ...He has obviously not used this system in either place he mentions. Citizens of those countries who actually need health care rather than just paying another tax into the system talk about the amount of time to get treatment, in many cases die off before services will be rendered. This is the throwing grandma under the bus scenario many spoke of, well now we have what the idiot Pelosi wanted by saying lets just pass it then see what is in it. It does not matter who voted an idiot like this in office, it wasn't too many years ago that such stupidity would have been laughed out of chambers

If you have experience in Canada then I would think you are aware of the many patients, in need of various surgeries, who encountered some lenghty appt. delays. Their answer.....go to the U.S. and get the surgery done in a timlet manner. Why don't you write sbout the experience the "so-called" writers/contributors of Obama's that had so much KNOWLEDGE about medicine they were able to compose this lenghty manuscript of crap...Obamacare. The snake-oil and scam days have returned and its ashame we have put so many idiots in Washington to lead this country with continued stupidity.

This article is a sad joke. It's hard to believe you could be in the employ of Motley Fool when they are usually such good, level headed analysts. Obamacare does nothing to reduce costs. In fact, the CBO has said that it will increase health care costs substantially and this was laughably predictable. Here's what it will do:

1) Reduce employment further

Because of the idiotic employer mandate vast numbers of workers will have their hours reduced under 30 per week. Many companies won't expand at all because they will not want to have to deal with this health care mess when they get to 50 employees.

2) Since so many current plans are not "good enough" under Obamacare, plan costs will increase for many people who cannot afford it.

3) Doctor shortages

Scores of doctors will retire early to avoid the administrative hassle and because they will not accept reductions in medicare billing allowances. Bottom line is that they will not work for free. Imagine that.

4) Because of the doctor shortages and many more people in the system the quality of care will be vastly reduced for everyone. Wait times to see a doctor will increase and many procedures will not be approved at all.

5) Medical innovation will decline due to the onerous taxes in Obamacare.

6) Because the fine is so low many people will opt to pay it rather than get insurance, thereby defeating the supposed purpose of "universal" health care. They also know they can wait until they have a health problem and sign up for insurance then because they cannot be denied for preexisting conditions.

I could go on and on with this but what's the point? This is literally the worst law in the history of this country. If left standing as is it will crush the economy, drive health insurance companies out of business (which is what they want anyway), and drastically reduce the quality of health care. And I'm not even getting into the horrifying theft of our liberty and how this is only the beginning. Wait until we are told what we can and can't eat. It's coming.

People need to understand that this law was passed purely for political reasons. Helping people was irrelevant. It is and always has been about greater power and control for the government. The only thing we can hope for is that as it rolls out and virtually nothing works as advertised, the chances of repealing it or parts of it will increase.

A truly effective health care plan would have to have been free market based and contain at least the following:

1) Tort reform to reduce the ridiculous cost of malpractice insurance

2) Freedom of choice to buy any plan from any company anywhere in the country. Mandates by states that plans carry coverage for just about everything drives up costs. There should be much more choice on deductibles and what is covered.

3) When an emergency room treats someone without payment they should have wide legal latitude to seek payment after the services are complete.

4) For people with pre-exisiting conditions the government could run a high risk pool to help them but this is not insurance it is an entitlement.

All that will happen here is that premiums will go up for us that work and the cost for the government will be at least 20 times what they say it will be. This is a tax for all workers and nothing less......they lie and then lie some more.

Insurance companies may only make a paltry 5% profit margin, but they are managing billions of subscribers' dollars and 5% is still lots of money. Nonprofit Independence Blue Cross of Greater Philadelphia made over $300 million in profits in 2011 and over $200 million in 2010. For profits make even more. They are often providing LESS medical care because they impose higher deductibles and copays each year so people can't afford to seek out medical care after paying high premiums for GETTING NOTHING.Don't cry for insurers!

Actually, #1 has already backfired. Under the assumtion that doubtful accounts will be reduced, compensation for doubtful accounts HAS been reduced. Meanwhile, the medicare umbrella is getting smaller, creating MORE people who can't pay.

And it does nothing about the John Doe ioff the street argument: maybe he's got insurance, maybe not, but hospitals have to treat him whether the question's answered or not.

The Mitt Care they have in Massachusetts which is supposedly very close to Obamacare is very well liked by the citizens there. Most of the comments here are obviously politically tainted and written by Obama haters and rightwing Republicans. Just as the

Canadians did a few generations ago when they embarked on the journey that is healthcare reform, Obamacare will be tweaked and changed over time by the needs of the average citizen instead of the avg. thieving health insurance co. Since I've worked in the Detroit area for many years, I've met quite a few Canadians, some whom I have worked on the job with and they are very satisified with their national health system.

Face it, the U.S. health "system" is broke and works only for the top execs of insurers including so-called nonprofits like BC/BS. The avg.

Where does one begin? In my opinion, anything that moves a market farther and farther away from capitalistic market principles is in trouble. There are always unintended consequences that result from market manipulation by those in the government that really don't understand nor appreciate market fundamentals.

1) your doctor is going to retire much more quickly than he/she would have prior to Obamacare

2) Medicaid, the closest thing to Obamacare, turns down more medical procedures than any health domestic insurance company

3) a Cap on insurance profits? Now that's certainly not going affect the interaction between the insurance company and their customers! /sarc

No one can, for long, manipulate the economy successfully. No one is smart enough. Free markets and individual choice is the only way to lower costs and improve healthcare delivery.

Free markets have provided healthcare innovations that lower costs and help ALL people. (Look at Lasik surgery - it is outpatient and it is cheap due to innovation and the free market.)

We're going to be reduced to the lowest common denominator of healthcare to "cover everyone" (which we won't), we'll have a doctor shortage, costs will skyrocket, you'll see rationing, and less healthcare innovation. Count on it.